Recent content by foxtrot_echo_

I am an Indian. Here in India the fever is pretty much high. Comparable to NBA or Baseball.

How many of the PF members are following the cricket world cup 2011 ? Depends a lot on whether you one of the 10 test playing nations, but still just curious. This is the most open WC in many years with all the top 5 teams having a realistic chance at the title.

I have a doubt, I think we also cannot tell what the "domain" is just from the "formula" . We can say what it "is not" but we can't say what it "is". for instance we can define a function as f:[1,2]->R , with f(x) = ex . here "domain" is what we define(i.e [1,2]) ,"co-domain" is what we...

basically , my confusion is this :- in functions which are not 'onto' , we are not pairing all the elements of the co-domain with elements of domain. but does the opposite make sense , i.e can we speak of a domain where some elements are not paired with elements of co-domain? Sorry if...

Consider the mapping f: X\rightarrowY where f(x)=y=\sqrt{1-x^2} consider the co-domain Y , we can define the mapping over [-1,1] \rightarrow \mathbb R , ( in this case the mapping won't be onto) and in case we define the mapping over [-1,1] \rightarrow [0,1] (in this case mapping is onto) (is...

No I am not attempting too much. hehe. After reading a few pages of Rudin and Herstein I have kept them out of sight currently. I am doing Spivak - Calculus. I just asked about the future books in view of making arrangements for them - i.e borrowing from someone. Only after Spivak will I...

which is easier Pugh or Berberian? After I finish Spivak that is.

@mathwonk Yes , when I read a few pages of Herstein and Rudin , I did experience what you just told. Apart from the difficulty level , I didn't get what the motivation was behind certain things. I.e I found the brevity aspect going against a beginner such as me. So I have decided to start...

Thanks . :smile:

ok. I will see if I can get hold of the proofs/analysis books. I was asking if I can use Spivak directly is because, I haven't had much trouble understanding the proofs used by Spivak. And anyways having done Engineering one has some notion of proofs. My point is , can formal study of proofs...

How is Calculus by Spivak ? I have it. Can I use it as a background instead of going through Lay's/Velleman. As I guess, calculus would be more famililar territory for me instead of methods of proofs ?

I will be appearing for a Maths exam. For which I will have to be acquainted with what's contained in Herstein's Topics in Algebra and Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis. I have got very little pure mathematics background. I have completed engineering so have 4 semesters experience...

Thanks for the replies . I will check those links. Anyways , my earlier understanding was flawed , wasn't it :- I guess I was using "7" as a subject whereas "7+5" in its entirety is the subject.

May you last for another 10 years or the end of mankind (whichever is later) :biggrin:

Yes, I read the transcedental argument of Kant. But I would also like to know what proof the modern day philosophers who are proponents of this theory use. The links you gave don't say much about arithmetic. :cry: